Background
The Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) have recently proposed a new classification of cardiogenic shock (CS) dividing patients into five subgroups.
Objective
Aim of this study was to apply the SCAI classification to a cohort of patients presenting with CS and to evaluate its ability to predict 30‐day survival.
Methods
SCAI CS subgroups were interpreted based on the recent consensus statement and then applied to N = 1,007 consecutive patients presenting with CS or large myocardial infarction (MI) between October 2009 and October 2017. The association between SCAI classification and 30‐day all‐cause mortality was assessed by logistic regression analysis.
Results
Mean age in the study cohort was 67 (±15) years, 72% were male. Mean lactate at baseline was 6.05 (±5.13) mmol/l and 51% of the patients had prior cardiac arrest. Overall survival probability was 50.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 47.5–54.0%). In view of the SCAI classification, the survival probability was 96.4% (95% CI 93.7–99.0%) in class A, 66.1% (95% CI 50.2–87.1%) in class B, 46.1% (95% CI 40.6–52.4%) in class C, 33.1% (95% CI 26.6–41.1%) in class D, and 22.6% (95% CI 17.1–30.0%) in class E. Higher SCAI classification was significantly associated with lower 30‐day survival (p < .01).
Conclusion
In this large clinical cohort, the SCAI classification was significantly associated with 30‐day survival. This finding supports the rationale of the SCAI CS classification and calls for a validation in a prospective trial.
A 'no-bonus'-freeze protocol for PVI using the second-generation 28 mm CB resulted in an 82% 1-year clinical success rate. A bonus freeze cycle following successful PVI may not be essential to superior clinical outcome.
Mechanical circulatory support devices (MCS) are potentially effective treatments for cardiogenic shock (CS) and are thus evaluated in several randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, it is not clear how enrolment criteria of these RCTs apply to a real-world CS population. This study aimed to shed light on eligibility to these trials.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.